Skip to main content

About your Search

20121129
20121207
STATION
MSNBCW 23
CSPAN 18
CURRENT 11
CNNW 10
CSPAN2 9
KGO (ABC) 9
MSNBC 7
FBC 6
KQEH (PBS) 6
CNBC 5
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 4
KNTV (NBC) 2
KPIX (CBS) 2
KQED (PBS) 2
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 150
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 150 (some duplicates have been removed)
government and freep enterprise movement and connect those policies. >> why has there been a failure to connect? >> i'm not sure there is one reason for it and i haven't had time to think about it why it has happened but it needs to happen. the principles we stand for, free enterprise and limited government is the only way to stabilize and grow our middle class which i hope every american can attain. >> how worried are you about the republican chances -- >> you mean from the voters' perspective. the demographic changes? i don't think any voter in america -- there are voters that are locked into one party or the other but the fastest growing group is people who vote for candidates and not parties and people understand the issues and hopes that they have and offer real and concrete policy situations and real role for government to play in addressing those angst yits they face. we are one election away to do it. we have to recognize what it is and concentrate on doing it. >> how much of a danger to republicans do you think is posed by the changing demographic? >> it's not a danger but i
his first four years increase the size of our federal government spending by 25 percent, and now he's asking for more stimulus money. unfettered control. this really is a hostage situation, and this is not what the american people need. we have 25 million americans looking for jobs, searching for jobs. we don't need to add additional taxes. gerri: covers woman, look. the american public is going to blame your party, the republicans, some 53 percent say of the fiscal cliff happens, every fall over the edge republicans are to blame. how do you square that? is a year on the right side, trying to do things. yet the public certainly does not see your effort. >> i think one of the things that is so difficult for me is that the media cannot not talking about you in particular. the general media has fallen into this rabbit hole of only talking about this one issue. if we were to give the president what he wants, the panacea. that is the pitfall of our problems. it only funds government for eight days. how can we be serious about staying focused on one thing in not talking about all the othe
. bottom line, i think, it's no way to govern. it is a giant mistake to have all of this in a pool of ambiguity, and as i understand it now, you would know more. i mean, it truly is a stalemate. they are not talking. >> now, you point out that it's the same player, and, i think, you'll agree player that is matter most are the president, speaker boehner. what do we know about the personal relationship that might illuminate what's going on right now? >> well, they started out last year when they were working on the debt ceiling, and they had what are calledded the merlot and nicorette's meetings. in other words, boehner would have a merlot, and obama would chew nicorette. >> you point outside in the book somehow when they took the official photo, both of those vanished. >> yes. they had iced tea there for obama. of course, boehner had his seg represent, and they put the cigarette in the ashtray away for the picture, but they have not closed the deal on the personal relations, and that's a shame. i think if somebody, instead of sponsoring your breakfast and all, sponsor a weekly dinne
it grow even faster than that in order to enable bigger government. 100% of our fiscal problem is on the spending side. obama is being very inflexible on that. republicans i'm afraid will get taken to the cleaners just what happened in 1990 when read my lips. melissa: would you rather we went over the fiscal cliff? >> compared to what obama's talking about, the fiscal cliff might be better because obama not only wants soak the rich tax increases that would automatically happen, he then wants additional taxes on top of that would be very bad for american competitiveness. we don't want to send jobs to china and india but almost as if obama wants to do that. at least if we went over the cliff, we would get the sequester, which is the budget wonk term for automatic reductions in the growth of spending. melissa: absolutely but i'm not sure republicans are giving in as much as you think. if you drill down on the details, as soon as i saw 800 billion in new tax revenue, my immediate question did they give on the point of marginal rates and from the language it doesn't look like. more
emerging economy. we asked about the report the government makes for business and enterprise. it is fair to say that his answer has captured the imagination of all political parties that will respond formally in the spring. so here's what we will do now. first, government spending should be alone with the business community. we will provide new money to support the partnerships. from april 2015, the governmental elites one of the funding and get people back to work. the gross funds are having businesses get back into the game. we are going to support businesses and technologies where britain has a clear technology advantage. we will extend our global lead in aerospace and support the supply chain for advanced infection. we've also support british companies to new emerging markets in asia and africa and the americas. and increasing the funding for the uk by over 25% a year. so they can help more firms build the capacity of overseas british chambers and maintain our country's position as the number one destination in europe for foreign investment. we are launching a new 1.5 billion pounds
. syrians have the right to choose their government, the president, and any individual to run the world. as these ideologies are conflicting right now, that is normal. we see that in egypt. each side tries to extend its power through institutions, through the constitution. i think this is a healthy discussion, especially after 40 years of dictatorship. the people are not used to sharing their opinions and hearing other opinions. they need some time to be able to reconcile all of the different ideologies. at the end, i believe in the syrian people that they will be able to end the assad regime. >> thank you. i would like to debate on the ideologies and the syrian opposition. i will let you go into this issue. can you talking about the role played by the syrian muslim brotherhood within the opposition. the majority of the seats still being that of the muslim brotherhood. the leaders are close -- what is the role played by them? >> i think the united states has to deal with the reality with the rise of muslim brotherhood and the whole region, not only in to nietzsche, egypt. the difference
not because of government. companies were carved by bacteria simply to protect their brand. competition, device the pipes are reputation, it protects us much better than government over well. that is our show. i am john stossel, thank you for watching. [a[a >> i am pratt tee ann brown. >> i a heather cheryleds. thank you for watching "fox friends first." >> overnight two suspects have been detained after a coast guard member was killed in santa cruz island in california. chef petty officer terrell horns suffered a traumatic head injury after suspected smugglers rammed his boat sending him into the water. another cost guard member was also injured. >> a confessed serial killer has been found dead in his jail cell. israel keys was found dead in an apparent suicide. police are linking him to at least 7 other murders. cops say he confessed to killing the 18-year-old woman as well as a vermont couple. he then told them he killed 4 people in washington state and one in new york. >> the trial for the suspected wikileaks suspect bradley manning delayed. it is take longer than expec
of the medical are too -- government -- i don't want to -- medicare, keep complaining about -- and because the hospital -- and they never contribute that much noun medicare. and they put all the money they could toward the working -- if you add them up, it's not that much money. host: to the proposal at hand, what are your comments or thoughts about it? caller: i think it should be cut a lot more than what they cut, because environment is what is killing this country and upping medical costs. they should get the sobel security. but i thought that's what the problem is and -- the congress and legislator to stop to fay medical. host: we'll leave it there. you may have seen this picture, it's the president of the united states in the oval office with his foreman opponent, mitt romney. according to some it was a private launch the featured turkey chili and the actual conversation that never happened while two presidential nominees are come paining against each other, they pledge to keep in touch and maybe even work together all that according to what happened behind closed doors, the two men t
in of government at the federal level. that has nothing to do with this. that would be more on the spending cuts. host: what do you make of the back a plan being reported by the new york times saying if we cannot come to some sort of deal, we should just passed tax cuts for the middle class americans and then fight later on for spending cuts and increasing taxes for the wealthy? caller: the tax cut for the general population is great. that would be good for stimulating the economy. but the big thing is hit there needs to be a balanced plan. we need more revenue and we need less spending at the federal level. what is good for california is not good for virginia and what's good for virginia is not good for maryland. maybe we need to focus on reducing the federal government overview. been there would not be as much spending or taxes needed. then let the states deal with the taxes they need to take care of their citizens. host: robert, milwaukee, democratic caller. caller: i would like to say that the republican party, not all of them, i think it's just the tea party, they are destroying the republi
of them who signed the pledge they want to slink government. i listen to c-span. they're so upset about ben gauzey, which they should be upset about, they don't take into account that the state department has a shoestring budget. people are very upset about the compounding, but the f.d.a. operates on a shoestring budget because they have been shrinking government. host: so anne, do you see room for cut? caller: yes, i see room for budget cuts in the defense department. i'm a senior citizen facing retirement, and i really do believe in some means testing for social security. it's an insurance program. and there are people, you're just like with your health insurance, if you're really lucky and you've done the right things, and you're really healthy, you're not complaining that you've paid for health insurance. and then the people who need it, there's money for them. so it's the same thing. there are many people who have benefited greatly, sometimes from unfairnesses that rich people have bought for themselves and our country. but your people have benefited, and so you know why should the
back to state and local governments. but during an era of fiscal restraint and global warming, it's high time that we start this conversation in earnest. how big do you want your fema to be? how generous your disaster relief payments and how much do you want to pay for it? in today's "new york times" op-ed section, there's an article that points out potential liability for flood insurance alone is $1.25 trillion. second only to the liability for social security. right now we have arguably the worst of both worlds. the federal government responds to disaster usually paying too much for the wrong people to do the wrong things. we provide federal money to put people back in harm's way and sometimes provide infrastructure to make future risky development worse. we often take remedial action, like for theifying beaches, a temporary solution, that can actually accelerate erosion elsewhere, shift storm damage down the coast to another spot or more serious flooding downriver. by giving the illusion of protection, more people locate in dangerous areas and the vicious cycle is repeated with
the tax burden that americans are paying to the federal government. given that, do you support the proposal put forward by john boehner? >> well, because the proposal is significantly amorphous, you could get those revenues through economic growth and we don't really have things nailed down, i don't want to talk about a hypothetical, but there is a danger that when you put revenues on the table, even revenues through economic growth, if you grew at 4% a year, reagan levels, instead of 2%, french levels or obama levels, you would net $5 trillion in additional revenue to the government, you could pay down all of obama's additional debt by higher levels of growth, not raising taxes. so there's a lot of money to be gotten from growth. how they do this, we have to see it written down, but because the obama administration and spokesmen have been so emphatic about all taxes and no spending restraint, all taxes and actually spend -- another stimulus, another solyndra stimulus program -- >> i don't think they've mentioned solyndra, grover, but i'm sure they appreciate your mentioning of
, because they felt that the government might devolve into tyranny and the second thing was the founding fathers knew they had to settle this giant country and there weren't going to be laws out in the west and people didn't have guns to protect themselves from bears and any native americans that didn't like them coming on their property. so there is a history here. most people don't even understand that history. so, americans grow up with the right to protect themselves against the government and against bad people. then you enter into the modern age where you have a debate about well, what's the government's responsibility here because these are lethal weapons? and that's where you come in. all right? so you you are saying that you want a more stringent program by the authorities to make it harder to get guns? >> no, no. you are saying i'm saying that. >> bill: you are not saying that? you don't want to make it harder to get guns? >> if you ask me, i believe that there should be more comprehensive and effectsive controls on the sale of guns. >> bill: what does that mean? >> but that is
government? why would he be doing this? >> well, i think the professor reason is probably do it in conjunction with the anniversary or, on the 17th which is, widely reported in the paper, in the newspapers, but, you know, our assessment is that their desire to continue down this road is motivated by their desire to ensure that their capability, they are now a self-proclaimed nuclear state, their ability to be able to demonstrate to the world that they have the capacity to be able to build missile and have in the technology to be able to use it in ways of their choosing down the road. and this as i said earlier would be very destabilizing i think to not only to the region, but to the international security environment. so who's helping them and my assessment of their ability to be able to launch this missile? i think that they have progressively gained better technology over time, and they have progressively gained that through a number of methods over a number of years and decades. to the degree that they will be more successful than they were last time, in such a short perio
the best politics is good governing and i think we need to see more focus on solving problems and getting things done in washington than playing politics. i think to recognize there's been real progress made, right the border is safer today, the immigration system is better, the two parties worked together to do that over the last few years. there are still some meaningful things that need to get done. the d.r.e.a.m. act, we have to fix the low-end and high-end visa system. the mexicans are going to do a whole boar border system. i think there will be a lot of room to work together next year to get something meaningful done. if the republicans are earnest and play it straight i think they'll get a lot of credit for working with the democrats to fix the broken immigration system and making it better. jon: getting something meaningful done, it seems like a longtime since that's happened in washington. we'll look forward to it. simon rosenberg. kate obenshane thank you much. jenna: the nato alliance warning the assad regime in syria against using chemical weapons against his own people. this
or revenue, that is, the amount of money taken in by the federal government has recovered, and it's doing much better. >> right. gerri: turning your tarns to a conversation going on for days lately. the most recent adherent oklahoma congressman tom cole saying, look, republicans need to compromise. they need to keep tax cuts in place forpeople earning $250,000 and less. heays it's time to make a change and now people on the hill saying that the g.o.p. is splintering. what do you say? >> that's not true. actually, what tom was trying to say was it's a tax call thing. tom is against raising taxes on any level. he's against raising taxes on all folks, but have agreement with the president onhis group that's $250,000 and less, clear the table and make the bracket.ions in the upper he's against raising rates on every single one of those. th's been a clarification. gerri: what about corker and grahm and all these people in washington, elected representatives now saying,you know, i'm rethinking whether there should be a no tax pledge. >> true. that's on the senate side. on the house side,evenue
is that it is a government agency that is not as nimble. long-term, if you have 3% down payment, it is one thing to trust that the lenders to use the program will operate according to the guidelines, but does the institution have the bandwidth to change circumstances? even if it were not as severe as 2006, say we go through a period where congress allows downpayment-funded assistance. how able is the fha to set those proper underwriting standards? >> there is no question that the fha any other agency needs to be more organized than what we have today. fhfa it is 80 years old. it has never required taxpayer money. the fact that we have a 1000- year flat and fha has plans for a 100-year flat, it is unfortunate, but it has worked out somewhat well. >> what we should be thinking about is, how do we take advantage of this opportunity to learn how to do the modernization that roberta talked about? we did learn about ko'd during this crisis, when fha wanted to change its standards and eliminate a program that was clearly costing it a significant portion, having an agency which does not have the authority to act
of government, and the president is proposing to grow it more. to spend more. the problem is isn't tax policy, mr. speaker. the problem is spending. you know, mr. speaker, we hear a lot about fairness. i want to talk a little bit about that now. i'm going to switch to tax policy because that's what everybody seems to be obsessed with in the media. i want to make sure we dispel some of the myths of what's going on there. i went to dictionary.com as i'm apt to do, mr. speaker, and printed out what fair is. they said free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. the first definition. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. and two, legitimately thought, pursued, done, or given proper under the rules. fair. but i think we all support fairness. i'm certain that we do, but i'm absolute certain what president obama believes is fair is different from what the people i represent believe is fair. and what i brought here, mr. speaker, is a chart from the joint committee on taxation, that's the group here on capitol hill that is in charge of measuring all the tax policy, it's a nonpartisan group, they just
-evaluation. conservatism is an asset, not a liability, as we try to govern this country in the 21st century. and i look forward to staying in touch with jim and to working with him at the heritage foundation to see what we can do to improve the fate of our country so we will not become greece. no one is more worried about this nation's unsustainable debt situation than senator demint. i've seen him deinvolve over time to someone who could just not sit quietly, who had to take up the cause. in the 2010 election cycle, he was one of the strongest voices this he had would a lost our way -- that we'd lost our way in washington. jim is a kind, sincere man, an individual who is a joy to be around. when it comes to what's going on in america, jim understands that if we don't make some changes we're going to lose our way of life. that's what's driven him above all else, to try to keep our country a place to be place where you can be anything. i look forward to working with jim in the private sector. from a personal point of view, we've had a great ride together. it has been fun. it has been challenging, and i
. speaker? when is america paying its fair share but the federal government is spending too much anyway. middle class america, 46.3%. that's middle class america. that's $35,000 a year you are earning. and your federal government and state government hit you for a combination of 46% of every dime. what incentive is that to go out and work longer and harder? 46%. 57 over here. 57. we all know small businesses create all the jobs in this country. that's why we are so worried about this tax proposal because while this is already 57% over here, mr. speaker, the president wants to raise it another 3 to almost 60%. 60% of every dime earned by family-owned businesses, the president wants to take back to washington, d.c. i'm in favor of a balanced approach. i'm committed to fairness in american society. but, mr. speaker, i ask you, is the problem that taxes are too low or is the problem that spending is too high? what better than class warfare, mr. speaker. we are better than saying we are going to ask the them to bear the burden while the we been fit. -- ben fifment -- benefit. 320 million of
for a government of the many and not government of the money. john larson is up her fifth person -- perfect person in that regard. first, i want to talk about the subject at hand. the president has his pen in hand. he is ready to sign the middle class income tax. a similar bill was introduced into the house at that time. since then, we have been asking republican leadership to bring middle income tax cuts to the floor. the clock is ticking. it is important with tax legislation -- for the tax legislation to happen now. we are calling on the republican leadership in the house to bring this legislation to the floor next week. we believe that not doing that and holding the middle income tax cuts hostage for the tax cuts for the rich will heap mountains mountains of debt on future generations. to that end, if there is no announcement of scheduling of the middle income tax cuts -- which by the way, it has tremendous support and every pub can caucus -- i think we will get 100% vote if they came to the floor. if it is not scheduled, on tuesday we will be introducing a discharge petition. if we can get a c
its rating on u.s. government bonds. now, the president has proposed he be given authority to raise the debt ceiling without congressional action. house republicans reject that idea. and they've called for raising revenue without rate hikes, plus major savings in entitlement programs. the president argued today a partial deal is possible on taxes, if the g.o.p. will agree to raise rates on the top 2%. >> and if we can get the leadership on the republican side to take that framework, to acknowledge that reality, then the numbers actually aren't that far apart. another way of putting this is, we can probably solve this in about a week. >> reporter: despite issuing a warning to congressional republicans, the president also expressed optimism that some gop lawmakers may be warming to the idea of allowing taxes on the wealthy to rise. but here at the capitol today, congressional republican leaders said the president should focus less on tax increases and more on spending cuts >> we put an offer on the table. now he has out of hand rejected that. where are the specifics? where are the dis
to the regime since 2009 when the iranian government was caught off guard and saw the large presence on the internet and getting information from outside of the country and sending information from inside out. it was the twitter rev -- revolution. they were using youtube and blog citizen journalist . this is the dialogue and communication that the government wants to control. so on - >> gretchen: so they are putting satellite blockers. >> it is working. every time there is an obstacle in place they are fining ways to work around it they are technological savvy. three-quarters of the country is under the age of 35. this is not someone they can suppress for too much time . the message to the west and united states in particular, is that this is the achilles heel of the government in iran. they want to protect their existence and they feel vulnerable . they will go to any ends to stop this flow of information. >> gretchen: what should westerners be aware of? is there anything can do? >> support the iranian people in terms of the programs. in the 2009 uprising, there were independent com
yesterday on c- span2. if any family brand their house all the way the u.s. government ran there's, if we could not print money, we would be in a very bad way. i just think we need to get this deficit under control. those two wars that we have not paid for need to be paid for. you know, it has to be done. if going off the fiscal cliff means that it will be done, so be it. host: other groups are weighing in on these fiscal cliff talks. here is "the new york times" -- in the "financial times" this morning -- roger altman writing today in "the financial times." president obama will be meeting with several governors today at the white house to talk about the fiscal cliff. they will be meeting this morning around 10:00 a.m. eastern time, and then the governors are slated to hold a news conference at around 11:30 a.m. eastern time. go to our website for more details. washington insiders tackle fiscal cliff policy solutions. the group will hold a roundtable discussion today on the importance of reform to address the nation's debt and deficit spending this event takes place this morning around 8:
republicans hate government and that's why they don't run it very well. >> but they hate government so that's why they don't run it very well. >> right. >> bill press said you can't be in washington without giving you opinion about whether or not we're going off the fiscal cliff, blah, blah blah. and i said the democrats tend to be the responsible party in terms of wanting to govern and then bill says because they hate it, and i say right. why would you make some big operate well that you don't like. >> you are a couple of marksists. >> what did reagan say? the government is the problem. >> right. they don't like the government. >> and i don't suppose the government is anything anybody would ever want to strangle in the bathtub. >> stephanie: no. all right. let's dive in to right-wing world. [♪ circus music ♪] >> stephanie: all right. rush limbaugh. >> folks i'm a little worn-out fed up and very inpatient with these ongoing assaults on the people who work in this country. the current disaster is not teaching people a lesson, nothing will. we're not teaching people to be
further $200 billion by changing the way government calculates the levels for social security and medicare. humbug, indeed. that's the christmas message from speaker boehner. "hardball" with chris matthews is next. >>> in the belly of the beast. let's play "hardball." ♪ >>> good evening. i'm chris mam ewes in washington. let me start tonight with some grave robbing. we're going gown to the dark, cold tomb of the late romney campaign. we're going to excavate the murky truths that were the living heart and mind of the defeated republican effort. going to exhume tonight the guts of the thinking that went on and went so wrong. tonight, we get what we only guessed at, the results of which played out in the numbers of election night. the nasty, anti-immigrant politics, the attitude toward that 47%, the failure to turn out the white male vote, the reason romney picked ryan and the wild prelude to the clipt eastwood performance. tonight on "hardball," the dark arona of what lies now beneath the dirt so we can understand what it looks like, to think and feel your way into a historic
to help make government more efficient. there is a big debate going on about government spending, wasteful spending. maybe he will enlist mitt romney for a initiative along those lines. jon: talk about government spending, we've got that fiscal cliff coming up january 1. might this conversation somehow be used to make some progress on that? >> reporter: it could because of the fact the other person on mitt romney's schedule today is congressman paul ryan, the house budget chairman. of course was his running mate back during the campaign. paul ryan has a key role in these budget talks of course as well. where they stand, a short time ago vice president biden went to a local costco here in washington, d.c., proclaimed himself optimistic they would get a deal. the fact of the matter yesterday, erskine bowles, a key player as well, saying he is slightly pessimistic. he says there is 2/3 chance they will go off the fiscal cliff. that is not what the markets want to hear, jon. jon: not at all. ed henry at the white house. if jay carney relents and let you into the meeting give us a shot. we'll b
of fema testifies on capitol hill about the government's response to hurricane sandy. and later, senate debate on the u.n. treaty for the disabled. ♪ ♪ >> this weekend on c-span3's american history tv, follow harry truman easeleddest grandson to hiroshima as the city prepared to mark the bombing of the city in 1945. >> you know, everybody has their own view what happened, and i, i don't, i don't want to argue survival with anyone in japan about the history. i think we're past that. my whole purpose for being here is to listen, to honor the dead, to listen to the living and to see -- to do what i can to see this doesn't happen again. >> clifton truman daniel will join us sunday at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> now, a discussion of how the military and national security might be affected by spending cuts scheduled to take effect the first of the year. part of the so-called fiscal cliff. former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen, was joined by the chairmen of the senate house armed services committee. this is a little less than an hour. >> good afternoon. thank
government. merry christmas, government. you are not the real savior. the reverend joins us live this christmas season. >> brian: super storm sandy couldn't wipe out his home but something else did. >> she said to me. are you sure your house is gone. you misplace a pen and pencil but not a house. >> gretchen: how the entire house vanished."fox and friendst now. ♪ ♪ "fox and friends". >> steve: a house is something that is not easy to misplace. if you leave it there, you come back and it is there. >> gretchen: you hope that happens. we'll fill you in on the details. in the meantime what happen in a phone call. a lot can happen, right. you can get in fights and agreements and compromise. hum, i am not so sure that happened in the phone call between speaker of the house john boehner and president of the united states, barack obama. did they come to a conclusion. it is now the president's turn. >> brian: it is a week since the president and speaker talked. i do not know at of this moment who called who. >> steve: we know no details. >> brian: it is good there is no details. i jus
businesses which provide 67% of the jobs in this country. that may fund the government for a short time. then, what's the plan? stimulus 2.0. because the first stimulus worked so well? that was a disaster as well. we have a $16 trillion deficit, and the president wants to spend more money. are you kidding me? spending is the problem. we don't need more of it. lastly, he wants the power to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval. the administration cannot issue an edict like a money monarchy. congress, congress, congress is in control of the purse. we have gone wild and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. quigley: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the impact that independent locally owned businesses have in our communities comes as no surprise. the social and environmental outcomes are essentia
to work from some form of tax on the infrastructure that we build. it is the duty of our government to do things for people that they cannot do themselves. the rich can do for themselves. the poor people cannot. i'll hang up and listen. host: let's go to curtis dubay. guest: we keep hearing about infrastructure investment. but the way we do that is federal gaps. the 65 cents of every dollar raised for the federal gas tax actually goes to roads and bridges and highways. the rest of it goes to things that are not supposed to be funded by the attacks. sustainability projects, bike paths, roadside museums. i would much rather see us spending all of the money on infrastructure and then come back in five or 10 years and say, well, maybe then. we are spending the money on infrastructure. it is a weak argument. host: let's go to laura. caller: i have two comments to make. the first is, the bush tax cut entitlements were supposed to be temporary. i remember when they were argued, and as far as i'm concerned, republicans live at that time. they never intended it to be temporary. they intended it to
except trying to rein in government. >> the truth of the matter, what's a starting to happen is that international investors, the fact that we cannot govern is going to really come home to roost. >> gld man says this is the first time he's seen people take it out of american markets. >> it's he supposed to work this w way. they can't govern either. >> i was so hopeful, i wasn't obviously thrilled with the election results, but i actually thought that result might be the result we needed to get thefshs done. >> in a way you you have the situation where -- >> you extend 98 but not the 2? believing that story is so -- >> either raise them on everyone or raise them on -- either it will hurt the economy if you raise taxes or it's not. on 98 it won't hurt, on 2 it will -- >> we'll have more on this argument. in the meantime, let's talk about some of the other headlines. financial firms are gathering for the goldman sachs financial services contractors. a key presenter is brian money tha moynihan. we talked about his reports of planned fee increases. plus there was the issue of pres
the spending side. >> eliot: in fact, our government as a percentage of gdp is smaller than most of those countries. >> every one of them. our total taxes are about a quarter of gdp. that's ten points less than most of the rest of them. >> eliot: the conclusion you reach is that maybe it would be better if you voted for -- have a flat tax. in other words buy conservative argument. i hate to mar it with that prejudice. have a flat tax. give us a broader base. then because you could raise a lot more, kind of -- but we'll spend a lot more on anti-poverty programs. >> perhaps i wouldn't go as far as having a flat tax because our income inequality is so intense there is a very good case of trying to tax the very rich but i do think the flatter tax would be very useful. >> eliot: the problem we have politically here in the u.s. of course is there is this fundamental aversion to the size of government, to a big government. and what you're suggesting is that we need different scale of government. we need a bigger govern
they want to and also, let's be real, because the government encourages through the tax code. it is reported in bloomberg in 2009 households with incomes of more than $200,000 claimed almost $60 billion in charitable deductions or 20% of total charitable giving in the u.s. that year. he goes on to site one study that found charitable donations are cut almost dollar for dollar to the increase in the donor's tax bill. so that could be a $60 billion cut to charity coffers. other studies said it could be half that though still likely in many billions of dollars of cuts to charities. that is the reality behind base broadening rate lowering tax reform. not magic. more of a magic trick that leads to a distraction to distract the audience from where the increases really are. but it is tax increase. on charitable giving, buying and state and local taxes. it is a an increase on marginal rates. that's a fair argument to have but is the argument we need to be having? joining me now to have some of that argument is chris hansen president of the american cancer society. the cancer action network. thank yo
on seniors. the government is warning reverse mortgages are not free money. >> turn equity into tax free cash. >> give you tax free cash. >> they're not being told. about the downside. >> reporter: right now in america, 57 seniors in reverse mortgages are in danger of losing their homes. nearly 10% foreclosure rate, 4 times higher than traditional mortgages. the department of housing and urban development will recommend congress prohibit large lump sum payments and recommend seniors be careful with reverse mortgages. is the reverse mortgage the last option? >> i really think it should be, absolutely. >> reporter: an option. >> it is a wonderful house. >> reporter: linda mcmahon regrets taking. >> i hope somebody enjoys it. >> reporter: jim avila, abc news, washington. >> you have to feel for her, too. here's the problem in a nutshell. unlike traditional mortgage. make your payments. equity. a reverse mortgage pays out equity in your home as cash. increases your debt and decreases your equity. that's the problem in a nutshell. that's how the woman got into the situation she did. it sounds good
from the white house was let's fix this problem by incorporating a small businesses and less government intervention to curb the deficit. it has been astronomical. then i heard barack obama say the way we are going to do it is by making more cuts in various ways. he was saying by making more cuts and the only people it is going to hurt is the working class and somewhat of the middle-class. he should mention the fact that out of control spending has a lot to do with the credit card crunch. specifically because of the middle-class. i think if we get those tax cuts centered with them, i do not think the poll would be affected. you have these small companies that are developing, and he is saying have those small companies hire more people and get them involved, but come consumer expenditures. that is partially i think a solution. host: you are calling on the republican line and you think hillary clinton would make a good candidate. would you vote for her in 2016? caller: i think she would be a very vital aspect to the political process. as far as her running for president, 2016 -- god knows
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 150 (some duplicates have been removed)